作者：John·F· Haldon? 約翰·F·哈爾頓
出版商：1979年維也納奧地利科學(xué)院出版

接上

Just how soon this process began is difficult to say. Perhaps as soon as the armies had been permanently stationed in fixed districts for a fairly lengthy period — in the later 660s and 670s, since the withdrawal into Asia Minor was already well under way by the early 640s. To what extent it was influenced by the deliberate settlement of Slavs in Anatolia during this period must remain un- clear, although, it is apparent that Justinian II at least intended to extract military service from his new settlers.138 Possibly the latter were conscripted and then given land in a deliberate attempt to imitate the natural process which was occuring among the regular Roman armies. That the limitanei created a precedent for the deliberate settlement of soldiers along the frontier is highly unlikely. To begin with, the old limes, restored by Heraclius after 626, had been completely overrun — the approximate line of demarcation between Roman and Arab territory in the later seventh century corresponded in no way with the earlier frontiers and the regions where the limitanei had been based. That a system of limitanei was deliberately re-established in a new area in the 660s seems to me unlikely, the more so when the limited importance of such troops and their ineffectiveness as all but a local police force had been recognised. Limitanei undoubtedly subsisted in north Africa until the Arabs had overrun the exarchate of Carthage. But the origins of later military holdings in the East should not be sought here (as Karayannopoulos seeks to a certain extent to do), for the connection had long been broken when such holdings began to develop. The process was rather a “natural” one, in which troops permanently garrisoned in the areas they defended were absorbed by the local populace and acquired or rented small properties. Soldiers brought with them certain advantages, both in terms of status and in terms of their freedom from certain fiscal charges. To begin with, they constituted in many ways a distinct social group within their new communities, an asset which improved their opportunities of obtaining land or other property.

????????? 這個(gè)過程有多快開始很難說。 或許是在 660 年代后期和 670 年代，因?yàn)樵?/span> 640 年代初期撤退到小亞細(xì)亞的工作已經(jīng)順利進(jìn)行，因此軍隊(duì)在固定地區(qū)永久駐扎了相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的一段時(shí)間。 在此期間，斯拉夫人在安納托利亞蓄意定居的影響在多大程度上仍然不得而知，盡管查士丁尼二世顯然至少打算從他的新定居者那里榨取兵役。后者可能被征召入伍并 然后為了模仿羅馬正規(guī)軍隊(duì)中發(fā)生的自然過程而故意給予土地。 限制士兵在邊境沿線蓄意定居的先例是極不可能的。 首先，在 626年之后由赫拉克利烏斯修復(fù)的舊石灰已經(jīng)完全被淹沒——7 世紀(jì)后期羅馬和阿拉伯領(lǐng)土之間的大致分界線與早期的邊界和邊防軍所在的地區(qū)完全不符。在我看來，660 年代在一個(gè)新地區(qū)故意重新建立限制制度在我看來不太可能，尤其是當(dāng)人們認(rèn)識(shí)到這些部隊(duì)的重要性有限以及他們除了當(dāng)?shù)鼐觳筷?duì)之外的其他所有機(jī)構(gòu)都沒有效率時(shí)。毫無疑問，邊防軍在阿拉伯人占領(lǐng)迦太基總督之前，一直存在于北非。 但是不應(yīng)該在這里尋找后來東方軍事控股的起源（正如卡拉揚(yáng)諾普洛斯在一定程度上尋求做的那樣），因?yàn)楫?dāng)這種控股開始發(fā)展時(shí)，這種聯(lián)系早就被打破了。 這個(gè)過程是一個(gè)相當(dāng)“自然”的過程，在他們所保衛(wèi)的地區(qū)永久駐軍的部隊(duì)被當(dāng)?shù)孛癖娢詹@得或租用小財(cái)產(chǎn)。 士兵帶來了一定的優(yōu)勢(shì)，無論是在地位方面還是在地位方面 他們免于某些財(cái)政費(fèi)用。 首先，他們?cè)谛律鐓^(qū)內(nèi)以多種方式組成了一個(gè)獨(dú)特的社會(huì)群體，這是一種資產(chǎn)，增加了他們獲得土地或其他財(cái)產(chǎn)的機(jī)會(huì)。

Unlike Italy, however, Anatolia presents no documentation for such a development, and logical though it might appear in the light of what is known of the social position of the stratiotai at a later date, it must remain a hypothesis.

????????? 然而，與意大利不同的是，安納托利亞沒有提供這種發(fā)展的文件，盡管根據(jù)后來已知的階層社會(huì)地位，它可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)合乎邏輯，但它仍然是一個(gè)假設(shè)。

That many soldiers possessed landed property, or had also a secondary source of income which could support them, is thus very probable. The continued application of a hereditary enlistment of soldiers’ sons would strengthen such a tendency as soldiers’ families became firmly settled. It is impossible to determine whether the military authorities began deliberately to shift the burden of providing for the soldier and his equipment onto his family or host, however. More probably, the development was a result of the failure of the central government to maintain regular payments to the troops, and of the inability of the military authorities to adequately supply such widely distributed units. It had certainly begun before 741. Soldiers could thus be dependent upon their families or their private resources — if they became impoverished, there was no means of recovering their situation until the reforms of Nicephorus I partly took their position into account. The military authorities provided merely a (theoretically) regular cash payment, and supplies during campaigns.

????????? 因此，許多士兵擁有土地財(cái)產(chǎn)，或者還有可以養(yǎng)活他們的次要收入來源，這是非常有可能的。 繼續(xù)實(shí)行士兵的兒子世襲征募，將加強(qiáng)這種趨勢(shì)，因?yàn)槭勘募彝ヒ呀?jīng)穩(wěn)固地安頓下來。 然而，無法確定軍事當(dāng)局是否開始故意將提供士兵及其裝備的負(fù)擔(dān)轉(zhuǎn)移到他的家人或主人身上。 更可能的是，這種發(fā)展是中央政府未能維持對(duì)軍隊(duì)的定期付款，以及軍事當(dāng)局無法充分供應(yīng)如此廣泛分布的部隊(duì)的結(jié)果。 這肯定是在 741 年之前開始的。因此，士兵們可以 依賴他們的家庭或他們的私人資源——如果他們變得貧困，在尼西弗魯斯一世的改革部分考慮到他們的立場(chǎng)之前，沒有辦法恢復(fù)他們的處境。 軍事當(dāng)局僅提供（理論上）定期現(xiàn)金支付和戰(zhàn)役期間的補(bǔ)給。

Thus special legislation for the holdings or other sources of income which supported the soldiers is not forthcoming, because the duties were attached to the soldier, not his possessions. Only in the tenth century, when a large-scale process of alienation of soldiers’ properties got under way, did the state take decisive steps to protect these holdings and effectively to transfer the obligations involved from the soldier and his family to his land. As the economic position of this group was progressively weakened, so their ability to personally carry out their duties was reduced, and the tendency increased of commuting the services due for cash, which could be used to raise mercenary soldiers, the demand for whom was of course far greater in the conditions promoted by the largescale offensive operations and reconquests undertaken during the tenth century.

????????? 因此，支持士兵的財(cái)產(chǎn)或其他收入來源的特別立法不會(huì)即將出臺(tái)，因?yàn)槁氊?zé)是屬于士兵，而不是他的財(cái)產(chǎn)。 直到 10 世紀(jì)，當(dāng)大規(guī)模的士兵財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓過程開始時(shí)，國(guó)家才采取果斷措施保護(hù)這些財(cái)產(chǎn)，并有效地將士兵及其家人的義務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移到他的土地上。 由于這個(gè)群體的經(jīng)濟(jì)地位逐漸減弱，他們個(gè)人履行職責(zé)的能力下降，而換取現(xiàn)金的趨勢(shì)增加，可以用來培養(yǎng)雇傭兵，對(duì)他們的需求是 當(dāng)然，在 10 世紀(jì)進(jìn)行的大規(guī)模進(jìn)攻行動(dòng)和重新征服所促進(jìn)的條件下，情況要好得多。

The origins of the stratiotika ktemata （軍區(qū)）are thus to be sought in the permanent establishment of the field troops of the imperial armies during the 650s and after in the regions which they were to defend. They developed gradually as a response to local needs and circumstances and at least to some extent as the result of a preexisting principle of hereditary military obligations. They have nothing to do with the lands held by limitanei — however similar the two developments may appear; nor with any deliberate administrative pokey undertaken by the central government — although local administrative initiative is not to be excluded. Neither have they, to begin with, any direct connection with the establishment of the themes, areas under permanent military occupation, whose civil administrative functions were gradually usurped by military officials, the better to organise defence and to provide for their soldiers — although both processes were going on together.

????????? 因此，在 650 年代及之后，帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)的野戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)在他們要保衛(wèi)的地區(qū)的常設(shè)機(jī)構(gòu)中，要尋找軍區(qū)的起源。 它們逐漸發(fā)展成為對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)匦枨蠛颓闆r的回應(yīng)，并且至少在某種程度上是先前存在的世襲軍事義務(wù)原則的結(jié)果。 它們與邊防軍擁有的土地?zé)o關(guān)——無論這兩個(gè)開發(fā)項(xiàng)目看起來多么相似； 也沒有中央政府故意進(jìn)行的任何行政干預(yù)——盡管不排除地方行政主動(dòng)性。 首先，它們與主題、永久軍事占領(lǐng)區(qū)的建立沒有任何直接聯(lián)系，其民事行政職能逐漸被軍事官員篡奪，更好地組織防御和提供士兵——盡管這兩個(gè)過程 一起進(jìn)行。

Recruitment in the Byzantine empire thus took on two basic forms — voluntary recruitment (which includes various forms of press-ganging, recruitment through the offer of bounties and other rewards, through the settlement of foreign mercenaries with their families on Byzantine soil, and the hiring of whole detachments of foreigners for limited periods); and conscription, effected either through the hereditary obligations in soldiers’ families (re-introduced during the reign of Heraclius), or through obligations attached to the land of families with such hereditary obligations. The latter was a development which grew directly out of the former during the later seventh century; but which only became legally defined as the economic position of these families became weakened.

????????? 因此，拜占庭帝國(guó)的招募采取了兩種基本形式——自愿招募（包括各種形式的新聞聯(lián)營(yíng)、通過提供賞金和其他獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)進(jìn)行招募、通過外國(guó)雇傭軍與其家人在拜占庭領(lǐng)土上定居，以及雇傭和征兵，通過士兵家庭的世襲義務(wù)（在赫拉克利烏斯統(tǒng)治期間重新引入）或通過對(duì)具有這種世襲義務(wù)的家庭土地的義務(wù)來實(shí)現(xiàn)。 后者是在七世紀(jì)后期直接從前者發(fā)展而來的發(fā)展。 但這只是隨著這些家庭的經(jīng)濟(jì)地位被削弱而在法律上被界定。

The examination of these processes as they actually operated during the ninth and tenth centuries — for which there is a considerable body of evidence — must await a further study, however. The present paper is merely an attempt to present a general picture of the developments which produced the seemingly complex and mutually exclusive recruitment patterns of the tenth century. The anomalies and contradictions of the evidence can, I think, be resolved, if it is borne in mind that the evidence from legal sources, which is frequently treated as representing a fixed, official terminology, was itself in a state of flux and must be handled with some caution — I am thinking particularly of the varied uses of the terms strati?tes and strateuomenos.

????????? 然而，對(duì)這些過程在 9 世紀(jì)和 10 世紀(jì)實(shí)際運(yùn)行時(shí)的檢查——有相當(dāng)多的證據(jù)——必須等待進(jìn)一步研究。本文只是試圖呈現(xiàn)發(fā)展的一般情況 這產(chǎn)生了 10 世紀(jì)看似復(fù)雜且相互排斥的招聘模式。 我認(rèn)為，如果牢記來自法律來源的證據(jù)（通常被視為代表固定的官方術(shù)語(yǔ)）本身處于不斷變化的狀態(tài)，并且必須牢記在心，那么證據(jù)的異常和矛盾是可以解決的。 謹(jǐn)慎處理——我特別想到了“軍隊(duì)”和“入伍”這兩個(gè)術(shù)語(yǔ)的不同用法。

Many aspects of the problems reviewed here are in need of further research and discussion. I have avoided going into the question of the development of social dependency through the alienation of land and the impoverishment of “military families”, although this is clearly important in the discussion on the beginnings of feudal social relations in the Byzantine world. Instead, I have attempted to clarify the administrative developments which took place, since these are central to any understanding of Byzantine society and the state during the period in question. It is hoped that the present study will at least provoke further debate.

????????? 這里回顧的問題的許多方面都需要進(jìn)一步研究和討論。 我避免通過土地的異化和“軍人家庭”的貧困來討論社會(huì)依賴的發(fā)展問題，盡管這在關(guān)于拜占庭世界封建社會(huì)關(guān)系的起源的討論中顯然很重要。相反， 我試圖澄清所發(fā)生的行政發(fā)展，因?yàn)檫@些發(fā)展是任何理解拜占庭社會(huì)和相關(guān)時(shí)期國(guó)家的核心。 希望目前的研究能引發(fā)進(jìn)一步的討論。

The author is Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at the Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham; and is also a member of the Birmingham-Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Demography research project. He has worked extensively abroad, at the University of Athens 1972—73 while writing his doctoral thesis; and at the Institut für Byzantinistik und neugriechische Philologie in Munich, 1976—79. His publications include articles on military technology, Iconoclasm and the social and administrative history of the Byzantine armies. His chief interests lie in the field of social, economic and administrative history, upon which his research is currently concentrated.
????????? 作者是伯明翰大學(xué)拜占庭研究中心拜占庭研究講師； 并且還是伯明翰-敦巴頓橡樹園拜占庭人口學(xué)研究項(xiàng)目的成員。 他曾在國(guó)外廣泛工作，1972-73 年在雅典大學(xué)撰寫博士論文；? 1976-79 年在慕尼黑的拜占庭哲學(xué)和新哲學(xué)研究所。 他的出版物包括關(guān)于軍事技術(shù)、圣像破壞以及拜占庭軍隊(duì)的社會(huì)和行政歷史的文章。 他的主要興趣在于社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和行政史領(lǐng)域，目前他的研究集中在這些領(lǐng)域。（1979年的約翰·哈爾頓）

本書完結(jié)